Disturbing comments from Cooperstown President. Topic

Posted by Got_Worms on 11/23/2013 3:08:00 AM (view original):The only one in that group that just doesn't pass the smell test for me is Lee Smith. Granted he was the all-time saves leader when he retired, but is now 3rd to Rivera & Hoffman (both 1st ballot HOFers BTW), and John Franco is 4th. That says a lot, although Billy Wagner is 5th on that list, & I feel he's a HOFer.

Discuss...

Actually Lee smith belongs in the Hall of Fame, (if you allow relievers, remember most relievers are failed starters and there are no punters in the football hall of fame)
he was as good as Sutter,Gossage and Eck. and he wasn't a failed starter like Goose and Eck.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/29/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):Clemens was on his way to being one of the best of all time until he turned to PEDs. Anything achieved beyond that is tainted.

Cheaters should not be rewarded for cheating.

You want to kick all the guys who used greenies out of the Hall? Mays? Aaron? What about the spitballers? Neither greenies nor steroids were ever explicitly against MLB rules or policy, just US law. Spitballs were explicitly against the rules. So time to give Gaylord Perry the boot?

I'm so sick of this bullshit argument. Baseball has always rewarded those who get away with cheating. And the same guys who revere the spitballers and amphetamine abusers can't stand Bonds and Clemens because "they cheated the game." They did the same thing all the generations before them did, they just happened to have the best cheating technology available to date. Frankly, I think most of it is that everyone wants to believe the players and the game they saw when they were young and full of wonder were as good as it gets. The same reason that old guys in the '20s and '30s and even '40s would never accept that Ruth had been a better hitter than Cobb. The same reason everyone in the '60s and '70s and '80s was obsessed with putting an asterisk behind Maris' record. And the same reason that almost everyone over 40 now wants the steroid guys out of the Hall.

It seems to me that the "greenies = PEDs" argument is a "bullshit argument" as well. Are you saying that greenies in the 60's and 70's had the same impact on performance as steroids and other PEDs in the 90's and 00's?

With that line of logic, we should probably also throw in caffeine or sugar. Anybody who's had a cup or two of coffee before a game, or ate a candy bar, should be tossed as well.

You said cheaters should not be rewarded for cheating. That doesn't imply degree at all. Your argument here is retarded - you aren't trying to keep guys out of the Hall for any moral reasons at this point, only because you don't like their numbers. Because they're "too good." Or am I missing something?

As far as I can tell, there is no moral element to your rebuttal. I just made a MORAL argument - "They did the same thing all the generations before them did, they just happened to have the best cheating technology available to date." I'm pretty sure I implied right there that amphetamines don't have the ability to enhance performance to the same extent as steroids and HGH. But I don't see why it should matter. The reality is that guys have been using illegal substances to improve performance for decades, and we've been eagerly anointing them worthy of enshrinement. There is no MORAL difference from guys using greenies in the '70s and guys sticking needles in their ***** in the '90s. They're both using illegal substances because they think it will help them play better and make more money. Coffee and candy aren't illegal. I don't see what point you could possibly be trying to make except the one I outlined above - "I don't like how good their numbers are, so I don't want to let them in."

I think there is a huge MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between greenies and steroids. One is a quick "pick-me-up" before games to combat fatigue. The other is intended to cause PHYSICAL CHANGES (all caps, just like you) in their bodies to give them a competitive advantage,

To argue that there is no MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between the two is a disingenuous argument.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2013 8:16:00 AM (view original):I think there is a huge MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between greenies and steroids. One is a quick "pick-me-up" before games to combat fatigue. The other is intended to cause PHYSICAL CHANGES (all caps, just like you) in their bodies to give them a competitive advantage,

To argue that there is no MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between the two is a disingenuous argument.

I still don't see a moral difference here. It's a practical difference. Again, tell me how it is a MORAL difference.

There is no reason in the world for me to believe that the guys who took greenies wouldn't have taken steroids if they were available. They were willing to perform the same basic act - breaking the law to improve their games.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2013 8:16:00 AM (view original):I think there is a huge MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between greenies and steroids. One is a quick "pick-me-up" before games to combat fatigue. The other is intended to cause PHYSICAL CHANGES (all caps, just like you) in their bodies to give them a competitive advantage,

To argue that there is no MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between the two is a disingenuous argument.

I still don't see a moral difference here. It's a practical difference. Again, tell me how it is a MORAL difference.

There is no reason in the world for me to believe that the guys who took greenies wouldn't have taken steroids if they were available. They were willing to perform the same basic act - breaking the law to improve their games.

Yeah. There's no moral difference between cheating with greenies and cheating with steroids. No one is "cheating the game." The players did what they could to gain an edge. We understand it happened and move on minus the self righteous outrage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):I'll take your non-answer to mean that you know it's better to "reward" the hard working player than the party boy. But you can't say it because it ***** all over your argument.

You can take my non-answer to mean that if you want. It's not what I mean.

The difference between the impact of taking greenies before a game, and taking PED's with a workout program, is significant.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2013 8:16:00 AM (view original):I think there is a huge MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between greenies and steroids. One is a quick "pick-me-up" before games to combat fatigue. The other is intended to cause PHYSICAL CHANGES (all caps, just like you) in their bodies to give them a competitive advantage,

To argue that there is no MORAL (all caps, just like you) difference between the two is a disingenuous argument.

I still don't see a moral difference here. It's a practical difference. Again, tell me how it is a MORAL difference.

There is no reason in the world for me to believe that the guys who took greenies wouldn't have taken steroids if they were available. They were willing to perform the same basic act - breaking the law to improve their games.

It's the magnitude of the results. I don't think anybody expected that taking greenies over the course of a season was going to transform them from a 25 HR guy to a 55 HR guy. But that's what they were trying to do with steroids.

Maybe many of those guys in the 60's would have done steroids had they been available. But they didn't, because they weren't available back then. You can't punish people for what they might have done (but didn't do).

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):I'll take your non-answer to mean that you know it's better to "reward" the hard working player than the party boy. But you can't say it because it ***** all over your argument.

You can take my non-answer to mean that if you want. It's not what I mean.

The difference between the impact of taking greenies before a game, and taking PED's with a workout program, is significant.